If I am interpreting your inquiry correctly, the response is most likely "not without resorting to some unconventional methods." It appears that you are inquiring about this scenario:
const obj = {
x: {
y: {
z: 'test'
}
}
}
You wish to store obj.x
(or alternatively, obj['x']
) into a variable such that modifying that variable will result in a change to the x
field of object
obj</code. This task cannot be accomplished as desired. Once you establish the connection with:</p>
<pre><code>let root = obj.x
Any subsequent reassignment to root
will not affect
obj</code at all; this means that <code>root
acts independently from
obj</code. Visualizing it might help clarify this concept. Nevertheless, <code>root
essentially serves as a reference to
obj.x
, so if you were to execute:
root.y = 'test 2'
This action indeed alters obj.x.y
.
However, it is important to note that you are unable to assign obj.x
to a variable and then leverage that variable to modify the x
field within
obj</code. Modifications can only be made to fields WITHIN <code>obj.x
. In contrast to languages like C++, JavaScript lacks the capability to create aliases or manipulate lvalues.
If your intention is truly to update the x
property of
obj</code, you should solely store the string <code>x
in a variable like so:
root = 'x'
Then you could proceed with the following:
obj[root] = 'a new value for obj.x'
This operation will bring about changes to obj.x
. However, bear in mind that evaluating obj.x
first and using that result to modify
obj.x</code is not a feasible approach. Well, unless you delve into complicated tactics like this:</p>
<pre><code>root = 'obj.x';
eval(`${root} = 'a new value for obj.x';`);
Steer clear of such convoluted methods.
Moreover, if obj
itself was also a variable, you could carry out the following procedure:
receiver = obj;
prop = 'x';
Reflect.set(receiver, prop, 'the new value')
Hopefully, my interpretation aligns with your objectives. Regardless, perhaps this explanation may spark some ideas.